Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, lowering the bar. The description adds the prerequisite of project context, which is useful behavioral information. No side effects or destructive actions are mentioned, and nothing contradicts the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, tightly packed with purpose, context, usage, and a prerequisite. There is no redundant information or filler. It is well-structured and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple listing tool, the description is complete: it states the action, the resource, when to use it, and a necessary precondition. It does not describe the output format, but that is often implicit for list operations and covered by the schema. The only minor gap is lack of differentiation from list_scenario_runs, which could cause ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (skip and take) with clear pagination semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-related information beyond the schema, so it remains at baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists test scenarios and provides context on what scenarios are. It distinguishes from create_scenario, though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_scenario_runs, a sibling tool. The verb 'list' and resource 'test scenarios' are specific enough for most use cases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to browse scenarios or find an id' and directs creation to create_scenario. It also notes the prerequisite of 'Requires project context.' This is clear but does not cover alternative list tools for related entities like scenario runs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.